JUDGMENT N. P. Singh, J. - This writ application has been filed for quashing a notification dated 12th January, 1983, issued by the State Government accepting the resignation of the petitioner from the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I and for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a member of the said service. 2. The petitioner on the basis of recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') was appointed in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class II in the year 1960. Later, he was appointed in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I. on substantive basis. 3. The Agricultural and Veterinary Colleges in the State of Bihar were earlier owned and maintained by the State Government and were affiliated to different Universities. Persons appointed to Bihar Animal Husbandry Service were used to be posted in such colleges by the State Government. In the year 1971 a decision was taken to establish a separate University for Agricultural and Animal Husbandry. With that object in view the Rajendra Agricultural University Ordinance, 1971 (Bihar Ordinance No. VI of 1971) was promulgated, which was later replaced by the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 39 (1) of the Act provided for disaffiliation of different Agricultural and Veterinary Colleges and other institutions in the State of Bihar from the respective Universities and for maintenance of such colleges by the Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'.) In view of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the Act the control and management of such colleges and institutions were to stand transferred to the University. Sub-section (4) of section 39 provided for the transfer of the services of persons employed in such colleges or institutions to the University. Sub-section (4) as originally enacted was as follows:- "(4) Every person employed in any of the colleges specified in sub-section (1), or in any of the institutions referred to in sub-section (3) immediately before the date referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) as the case may be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, be• come employee of the University on such date." 4. The validity of the aforesaid sub-section (4) was challenged by some such transferred employees of the State Government, as being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The validity of the aforesaid sub-section (4) was challenged by some such transferred employees of the State Government, as being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. A Bench of this Court in the case of S. W. Akhter and others v. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.C.J.C. No. 1734 of 1971, disposed of on 29.4.72) relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. H. Papanna Gowda and another, (AIR 1971 Supreme Court, 191), held that sub-section (4) or section 39 aforesaid was ultra vires Article 311 of the Constitution because it purported to statutorily transfer the services of the person who had been appointed on substantive basis by the State Government, to the University which amounted to their removal from the service of the State Government. 5. After the aforesaid judgment, section 39 was amended by Rajendra Agricultural University (Amendment) Ordinance, 1973 (Bihar Ordinance No. 2 of 1973). Original subsection (4, was substituted by subsections (4) to (7) with retrospective effect saying that these sub-sections "shall be deemed to have been always substituted". Sub-section (6) of section 39 required every officer or employee of the State Government whose service had been transferred to the University to "give a written notice to the State Government within two years from the date of his service having been transferred to the University that "he may be absorbed permanently in the service of the University and thereafter the University shall absorb him permanently in its service and his service rendered under the State Government shall be deemed to be service under the University and he shall be entitled to get from the University with respect to remuneration, leave, and pension and with respect to service conditions, terms and disciplinary matters, such rights or in the altered circumstances such similar rights which shall not be less favourable than the service conditions, terms and rights for which that person was entitled to immediately before being absorbed in the University". That very sub-section (6) gave an option to such Government employees to be reverted to the Government service and they were to continue in Government sere vice on terms and conditions which were applicable to them immediately before their services were transferred to the University. That very sub-section (6) gave an option to such Government employees to be reverted to the Government service and they were to continue in Government sere vice on terms and conditions which were applicable to them immediately before their services were transferred to the University. Sub-section (7) was as follows:- "(7) If any officer or servant of the State Government does not give notice within the time prescribed under sub-section (6), he shall be deemed to have opted under clause (b) of sub-section (6) for being absorbed permanently in the service of the University." 6. Sub-sections (6) and (7) referred to above, continued in section 39 aforesaid till they were again replaced and substituted by the Rajendra Agricultural University (Fifth Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Bihar Ordinance No. 196 of 1975). Section 8 of that Amending Ordinance replaced sub-sections (4) to (7), which had been introduced by the Bihar Ordinance No.2 of 1973 in section 39. The relevant part of section 39 which was substituted by section 8 of the Amending Ordinance is as follows:- "8. Amendment of section 39 of Bihar Act VII of 1971.-For sub-section (4) of section 39 of the said Act, the following sub-section shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted, namely:- "(4) (a) All permanent employees of the Colleges, Research Institutes and other offices and institutions of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services have been transferred to the University, or such other permanent employees whose services are transferred by the State Government to the University from time to time, will be deemed to be transferred employees of the Government. These employees shall retain their lien on the permanent posts that they held in Government service on a substantive basis and their service conditions will be subject to the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and other Government Rules, Regulations and Orders in force or that may be framed or issued by the State Government from time to time. (b) All such Government employees of the Colleges, Research Institutes, etc. (b) All such Government employees of the Colleges, Research Institutes, etc. of the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Department who did not on the eve of transfer to the University hold any permanent post on a substantive basis under Government or such other temporary employees whose services are transferred to the University by the State Government from time to time, shall be deemed to have been appointed by the University and they shall cease to be Government servants provided that- (i) they shall give a written notice to the State Government within two years from the date of publication of the University Statutes in the Bihar Gazette that they may be permitted to revert to the Government service and thereupon they shall be permitted to revert to the service of Government to the extent of suitable vacancies available failing which their services may be liable to be dispensed with; (ii) the services rendered by them in the regular establishment under the State Government should be taken into account in calculating their Pension and Gratuity in case they are appointed to the pensionable establishment of the University. Every such individual, who has been employed by the University shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the enactments and statutes made." (emphasis added) 7. In view of the Amendment 80 introduced in the year 1975, all permanent employees of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services had been transferred to the University were to be "deemed to be transferred employees of the Government" and such employees were to "retain their lien on the permanent post that they held in the Government service on substantive basis." So far employees of the State Government, who did not hold any permanent post on substantive basis on the eve of transfer, provision was made in clause (b) of sub-section (4) for their absorption in the University service. Section 8 of the Amending Ordinance said sub-sections which were being substituted shall be and shall always "be deemed to have been substituted." Later, the aforesaid amendments in section 39, which had been introduced by Ordinance aforesaid were introduced by an Amending Act and they continued as such. 8. In the year 1986 the Bihar Agricultural University Ordinance (Bihar Ordinance No. 14 of 1986) was promulgated containing provisions which were applicable to the Rajendra Agricultural University as well as to the Birsa Agricultural University. 8. In the year 1986 the Bihar Agricultural University Ordinance (Bihar Ordinance No. 14 of 1986) was promulgated containing provisions which were applicable to the Rajendra Agricultural University as well as to the Birsa Agricultural University. This Ordinance was ultimately replaced by Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987 [Bihar Act 8 of 1988). Even in the aforesaid Ordinance and the Act section 39 says in respect of the employees of the State Government whose services had been transferred to the University that they shall be deemed to be transferred employees of the Government and they shall retain their lien on the permanent posts that they held in the Government service on a substantive basis. 9. There is no dispute that service of the petitioner was statutorily transferred to the University with the promulgation of the aforesaid Ordinance-Rajendra Agricultural University Ordinance, 1971. The controversy is as to whether he is continuing to hold lien in the service of the State Government or has been absorbed in the service of the University on substantive basis. 10. In the year 1978 the University decided to implement the U.G.C. scale of pay to the teachers of the said University. The Vice Chancellor by his letter dated 6.7.1978 directed that the transferred Government servants will be considered for grant of the said scale only if they opted, in favour of the University employment and resigned from the Government service. The petitioner submitted his resignation letter dated 21.7.1978 addressed to the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture/Animal Husbandry, Bihar. The contents whereof is as follows:- "I beg to exercise my option in favour of entering Service in the Rajendra Agricultural University in the U.G.C. scales of pay. Accordingly I hereby tender my resignation from Government service in duplicate, in terms of section 39 [1] of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971, to take effect from the date of my permanent absorption under the University. (a) This letter or resignation shall, however, be inoperative and treated as withdrawn in case 1 am not found fit for being granted the U.G.C. scale in permanent post under the University, or (b) in case I am required by Government on post carrying emoluments not less than my existing pay. I request you to kindly accept my resignation on the above basis and grant me such compensation proportionate pension as I may be entitled to under the Rules of Government." 11. I request you to kindly accept my resignation on the above basis and grant me such compensation proportionate pension as I may be entitled to under the Rules of Government." 11. On 10.1.1981 a notification was issued by the University, the relevant part whereof is as follows:- "Dr. Ram Naresh Singh, Principal, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna, who is a transferred Government Servant of the Department of Animal Husbandry of the Government of Bihar and having resigned from service under Government in terms of section 39 [19] of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971 has opted for the University Service consequent upon his having been found suitable by the Screening Committee for appointment in the U.G.C. scale of pay, is hereby appointed to the post of Principal in the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500, along with allowances, if any, sanctioned by the University from time to time with effect from 17th May, 1975. [after noon]. 2. He will be deemed to have been on probation for a period of two years with effect from 18th May 1975, completed the probationary period on 17th May, 1977 on a permanent basis." The copy of the aforesaid notification appears to have been forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, with a note as follows:- "As Dr. Singh has been permanently absorbed in the University Service w.e. from 18.5.77, his lien in the Department may be terminated with effect from a day earlier, i.e. 17.5.77, and his resignation from Govt. service accepted accordingly." 12. Before the resignation submitted on be half of the petitioner was accepted by the State Government, he addressed a letter dated 19.8.1982 to Commissioner, Animal Husbandry saying that he was a permanent employee of the Animal Husbandry Department and his service had been transferred to the University. He further said that for the reasons mentioned in the said communication he wanted to continue his lien in the Animal Husbandry Department. He further said that for the reasons mentioned in the said communication he wanted to continue his lien in the Animal Husbandry Department. The relevant part of the letter is as follows:- ^^egk’k;] eSa i’kqikyu foHkkx dk ,d LFkk;h inkf/kdkjh gw¡ vkSj gekjh lsok jktsUnz d`f”k fo’ofo|ky; esa LFkkukarfjr dj nh x;h gSA eSa fuEufyf[kr dkj.kksa ls viuk ozkg.kkf/kdkj i’kqikyu foHkkx esa j[kuk ilan djsxkA** In that communication the petitioner stated that he had opted for the service of the University for the Post Graduate Degree but as his wife was suffering from cancer and, she was being treated at Bombay, he could not get the Ph. D. Degree. He further said that as he was a permanent employee of the Animal Husbandry Department, so he did not want that his service should be transferred permanently to the University and he wanted to continue his lien in the Animal Husbandry Department. That part of the communication is as follows- ^^oSls Hkh eSa i’kqikyu foHkkx dk ,d LFkk;h deZpkjh gksus ds ukrs eSa ugha pkgrk gw¡ fd gekjh lsok LFkk;h :i ls jktsUnz d`f”k fo’o fo|ky; esa lkSaih tk;sA vr% vki ls lknj vuqjks/k gS fd esjk x`g.kkf/kdkj i’kqikyu foHkkx esa j[kk tk;s vkSj dkxtksa izksUufr nsus dk Hkh izko/kku fd;k tk;sA** Towards the end he said in that communication that he was prepared to come back to the Animal Husbandry Department if there was any necessity. 13. On 12.1.1983, a notification was issued by the Animal Husbandry Department saying that persons, who had given resignation from the service of the State Government and had been absorbed in the University service, their resignation was being accepted from the date mentioned in that notification. In respect of the petitioner the date from which his resignation was purported to be accepted was mentioned as 18.5.1977. 14. The petitioner addressed a communication on 25.2.1983, in connection with the aforesaid notification dated 12.1.1983, saying that he had already informed the State Government by his aforesaid. communication dated 198.1982 that he wanted to continue his lien in the Department and did not want to be permanently transferred to the service of the University, as such, it will be deemed that before the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation and he was continuing in the service of the State Government on permanent basis. The slime thing he reiterated in the other communication addressed by him to the Commissioner, Department of Animal Husbandry, requesting him to recal1 his service from the University to the Department. He referred to the aforesaid section 39 (4) (a) of the Act. It maybe mentioned that in this communication he reproduced the contents of his aforesaid resignation letter dated 31.7.1978. 15. On 3-5-1985 the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Animal Husbandry, informed the Director, Animal Husbandry that the request of the petitioner to continue his lien in the Department of Animal Husbandry and to allow him to return from the service of the University to the State Government had been examined and the State Government had rejected the same. 16. The claim of the petitioner that as he has withdrawn his resignation from the service of the State Government, before it had been accepted and as much he is continuing in the service of the State Government, has been contested on behalf of the State as well as the intervenors-respondents. 17. When a resignation from a service becomes effective has been considered from time to time by Courts. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (AIR 1969 S C. 180) it was said:- ".. …where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law of rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted. 18. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted. 18. Again in the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. India Nehru Gandhi and another, (AIR 1972 Supreme Court, 1302) the view expressed in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) was reiterated that whenever a public servant tenders resignation through a letter, his service normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. 19. In the well known case of Union of India etc. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others etc.; AIR 1978 Supreme Court, 694) where a question had arisen in respect of resignation tendered by a High Court Judge, it was pointed out by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as follows:- " ..…the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a "prospective" resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority." The same view was expressed again in the case of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.C. College of Technology (AIR 1981 Supreme Court 789) saying that the service of a Government servant normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by an appropriate authority, unless there is a statutory law or rule governing the conditions of service to the contrary. 20. 20. In the background of the settled legal position I fail to understand as to how the resignation tendered by the petitioner on 31.7.1978 with certain conditions mentioned therein became effective by acceptance of the said resignation by notification dated 12.1.1983 when in the meantime on 19.8.1982 the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation from the service of the State Government saying in clear and unambiguous words that he wanted to continue his lien in the Animal Husbandry Department. The most remarkable aspect is that in the notification dated 12.1.1983, the date of the resignation of the petitioner from the service of the State Government has been mentioned as 18.5.1977, when admittedly petitioner tendered his resignation from the service of the State Government on 31.7.1978. From bare reference to the letter of resignation tendered by the petitioner, which is quoted in a communication addressed by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Animal Husbandry Department, in December, 1984 Annexure-6 to the writ application) it will appear that he purported to tender resignation, to take effect from the date of his permanent absorption under the University. He also put certain conditions because of which his resignation was to become inoperative and was to be deemed to have been withdrawn. It is an admitted position that before the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the State Government he had already withdrawn the same. In such a situation, according to me, it is difficult to hold that the service of the petitioner under the State Government stood terminated on the basis of the resignation tendered by the petitioner. The necessary corollary thereof shall be that it shall be deemed that the petitioner continued to hold a lien in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I. 21. Faced with this situation it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that once the petitioner was absorbed in the service of the University on substantive basis his lien in the service of the State Government shall be deemed to have been terminated because the petitioner cannot be permanent employee of the State Government as well as of the University at the same time. In principle this proposition cannot be disputed that a person cannot be in service of the State Government as well as University on substantive basis at the same time. In principle this proposition cannot be disputed that a person cannot be in service of the State Government as well as University on substantive basis at the same time. But this issue has to be decided on a finding that the petitioner became a permanent employee of the University. In view of section 39 (4) (a) of the Act saying that all permanent employees of the Colleges and Institutes and other offices of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services had been transferred to the 'University "will be deemed to be transferred employees of the Government" and "these employees shall retain their lien on the permanent posts that they held in Government service on a substantive basis......" in my view, the lien which had been preserved by section 39 (4) (a) shall not stand terminated even if the University purported to appoint the petitioner in the service of the University on substantive basis. It is well known that any statutory right cannot be defeated by any executive order or by conduct of the parties concerned. 22. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that once the petitioner was appointed in the service of the University on substantive basis his lien on the service of the State Government was terminated. Reference in this connection was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh and another (AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 367). After referring to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, it was said in that case that from mere perusal of those rules it appeared that "normally a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. Similarly in the case of Ramlal Khurana (dead) by L.Bs. v. State of Punjab and others (AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 1985) again after referring to the aforesaid Punjab Civil Services Rules it was said:- "Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively' to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. The principle being that no Government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different cadres. Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. The principle being that no Government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different cadres. It is a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence." It need not be pointed out that so far the present case is concerned, the position is converse. Section 39 (4) (a) of the Act says in clear and unambiguous words that all permanent employees of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services have been statutorily transferred to the University shall be deemed to be transferred employees of the State Government and such employees shall retain their liens on the permanent posts that they held in the Government service on a substantive basis. This mandate of law could not have been ignored by the University by appointing the petitioner on substantive basis in the service of the University. In spite of such an appointment in view of section 39 (4) (a) he shall continue to be a transferred employee in the eye of law, retaining his lien on the permanent post that he held in the Government service. His lien in the Government service could have been terminated, if his resignation from service of the State Government had become effective. In that event his appointment on substantive basis in the service of the University would have become operative. 23. The learned counsel for the State and the intervenor-respondents then urged that the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of sub-section 4 (a) of section 39, which was introduced by the Rajendra Agricultural University (Fifth Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, saying that the permanent employees of the State Government whose services had been transferred by the State Government to the University "shall retain their lien on the permanent posts that they held in the Government service on a substantive basis... ..." because before introduction of the said amendment in section 39 the petitioner will be deemed to have been absorbed permanently in the service of the University by virtue of aforesaid sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 39, which had been introduced by the Rajendra Agricultural University (Amendment) Ordinance, 1973. ..." because before introduction of the said amendment in section 39 the petitioner will be deemed to have been absorbed permanently in the service of the University by virtue of aforesaid sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 39, which had been introduced by the Rajendra Agricultural University (Amendment) Ordinance, 1973. According to the respondents as the petitioner admittedly did not give a written notice to the State Government within two years from the date of the transfer of his service to the University saying that either he should be absorbed permanently in the service of the University or he be permitted to revert to the service of the State Government in view of sub-section (7) quoted above he shall be deemed to have opted for being absorbed permanently in the service of the University. In other words, because of sub-sections (6) and (7) his lien in the service of the State Government stood terminated. There was no difficulty in accepting this argument and in that event even the question of resignation by the petitioner and withdrawal thereof would have become irrelevant because of the effect of subsections (6) and (7), it had to be held that the petitioner had opted for being absorbed permanently in the service of the University and later having been appointed by the University on substantive basis he ceased to be an employee of the State Government. But the difficulty is created by section 8 of the Rajendra Agricultural University (Fifth Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, which replaced sub-sections (4) to (7) retrospectively. From a bare reference to section 8 of the Amending Ordinance it shall appear that the amendment had been introduced in the year 1975 retrospectively saying that the said subsections "shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted." By introducing a deeming clause while substituting sub-sections (4) to (7) of section 39, a fiction was introduced. As such, it has to be imagined that sub-section (4) (3) although introduced in the year 1975 was always there since very inception i.e. since the year 1971. 24. It is well established that an Act or an Ordinance can be brought in force prospectively as well as retrospectively. As such, it has to be imagined that sub-section (4) (3) although introduced in the year 1975 was always there since very inception i.e. since the year 1971. 24. It is well established that an Act or an Ordinance can be brought in force prospectively as well as retrospectively. It can introduce a legal fiction for the purpose of bringing any provision of the Act or the Ordinance in force from a day, even before the promulgation of the Ordinance, or the enactment of the Act in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by Courts that when an Ordinance or an Act by a legal fiction bids to imagine an unreal state of affairs as real, then it has to be so imagined including about the existence of circumstances and consequences. Reference in this connection may be made to the off-quoted passage from the judgment in the case of East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 Appeal Cases, 109) where Lord Asquith observed:- "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative, state of affairs had in fact existed; must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it...... . The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; It does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs". The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak (AIR 1953 Supreme Court 224); in Raja Shatrunjit (dead by his legal representatives. v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan and others (AIR 1971 S.C, 1474); in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 8aDgalore v. B. A. Jayaram and others (AIR 1984 S. C., 790); and in American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and another ( AIR 1986 S.C. 137 ) saying that when a statute enacts that something has been deemed to have been done, which, in fact and truth was not done, the Court is bound to give full effect to such statutory fiction and "it should be carried to its logical conclusion". In the case of Abdul Majid Haji Mahomed v. P. R. Nayak (AIR 1951 Bombay, 440), Chagla, C. J. while dealing with an Ordinance, which was brought in force retrospectively observed that in such a situation, the object of such section is "as it were, to antedate the Act so as to bring it into force on the day on which a particular order was passed which was being challenged." 25. In view of the specific command in section 15 of the Amending Ordinance of 1975, which substituted sub-sections (4) to (7) of section 39, saying that those sub-sections "shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted", it has to be imagined that sub-section (4)(a) was in section 39 since very beginning. In other words, by introduction of sub-section (4) (a) with retrospective effect, it shall be deemed that sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) in eye of law never existed. 26. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that effects and consequences of sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) which had been introduced in the year 1973 cannot be nullified and taken away by the Amending Act of 1915, so as to restore the lien of the petitioner in the service of the State Government. If this argument is accepted, then it will amount to allowing one's imagination to boggle while working out the consequences of a retrospective legislation. If the contentions of the respondents are accepted then it has to be held that although sub-section (4) (a) introduced in the year 1975 shall be deemed to be in section 39 from inception i.e. since 1971, but sub-sections (6) and (7) introduced in 1973 shall have their effect of terminating the lien of the transferred employees, in the service of the State Government. In my view, there is no escape from conclusion that the petitioner had the protection of sub-section (4) (a) of section 39 throughout so far the holding of his lien in the service of the State Government is concerned. 27. As sub-section 39 (4) (a) makes reference to Bihar Service Code although not in context with retaining the lien in the Government service but only with reference to other service conditions, it is advisable to refer to some of the rules of the Bihar Service Code in respect of the lien. 27. As sub-section 39 (4) (a) makes reference to Bihar Service Code although not in context with retaining the lien in the Government service but only with reference to other service conditions, it is advisable to refer to some of the rules of the Bihar Service Code in respect of the lien. Rule 67 (b) of the Code says that a Government servant cannot be appointed substantively, except as a temporary measure, to two or more permanent posts at the same time. Rule 68 is as follows:- "68. Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these rules a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired to any other post." On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that in view of Rule 68 once the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis in the service of the University he shall cease to hold the lien in the service of the State Government. In this connection reference may be made to the relevant part of rule 70(a) and (b) of the Code which is as follows:- "70 (a) The lien of a Government servant on permanent post which he holds substantively shall be suspended if he is appointed in a substantive capacity:- (a) xx xx xx (2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne, or (3) provisionally, to a post on which another Government servant would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under this rule. (b) The State Government may, at its option, suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post, which he bolds substantively if he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign Service, or, in circumstances not covered by clause (a) of this rule is transferred, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, to a post in another cadre, and if in any of these cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent from the post on which he holds a lien for a period of not less than three years." As a first impression the provisions of rule 68 and rule 70 (a) (2) of the Code appear to be conflicting because rule 68 says that a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired to any other post, Rule 70 of the Code does not speak about such Government servant ceasing to hold a lien but only suspension thereof. As in the facts and circumstances of the present cases the petitioner shall be deemed to have been transferred to foreign service, Rule 70 (b) of the Code shall be applicable. In such a situation the State Government may at its option suspend the lien of such a Government which he holds on a permanent post. There is no question of such Government servant ceasing to hold the lien. Apart from that in view of sub-section (4)(a) of section 39 of the Act there is no question of even Rule 70 (b) of the Code having any effect on the lien of the petitioner in the service of the State Government. If the case of the respondents regarding resignation tendered by the petitioner having become effective had been accepted, then it could have been held that the petitioner is not holding his lien against any post in the service of the State Government. But as I have held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the resignation tendered by the petitioner never became effective, the result will be that it shall be deemed that the petitioner is holding lien in the service of the State Government. 23. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. But as I have held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the resignation tendered by the petitioner never became effective, the result will be that it shall be deemed that the petitioner is holding lien in the service of the State Government. 23. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned notification dated 12.1.1983 purporting to accept the resignation of the petitioner from the service of the State Government shall be deemed to be of no effect so far the continuance of the lien by the petitioner in the service of the State Government is concerned. N. Pandey, J. - I agree.